Thursday, 13 December 2012

IPCC’s Sea level Rise Projections Busted.

Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not
change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental
record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise
during the 19th century.

Estimates for the 20th century show that global
average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr–1.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide
more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long
satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising
at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average
during the previous half century.

Table
SPM.1 shows model-based projections (m) of global average sea level rise
for the century to 2090-2099.[10]

B1 scenario

0.18 – 0.38

A1T scenario

0.20 – 0.45

B2 scenario

0.20 – 0.43

A1B scenario

0.21 – 0.48

A2 scenario

0.23 – 0.51

A1FI scenario

0.26 – 0.59

Roughly 20 to 60 cm per century that is 200
to 600 millimetres per century or average of 2-6mm per year but general reported as ~3.2mm yr.

NOAA 2012 report finds sea levels rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC

The Hockey Schtick has a post on the latest NOAA sea level budget (Link)

According to
the latest NOAA sea level budget, global sea levels rose at only 1.1 -
1.3 mm/year from 2005-2012, which is less than half of the rate claimed
by the IPCC [3.1 mm/yr] and is equivalent to less than 5 inches per
century. Contrary to alarmist claims, sea level rise decelerated over the 20th century, has also decelerated since 2005, and there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels.The report
compares sea-level rise calculated from two different methods: 1)
satellite altimetry and 2) ARGO measurements of the steric [thermal
expansion] component + GRACE measurements of ocean mass. The rate of sea
level rise using the 2nd method [ARGO + GRACE] shows a sea level rise
of only 0.2 {ARGO] + 0.1 [GRACE] = 0.3 mm/yr. Only by adding on a
relatively large and highly questionable GIA adjustment [based on a
model] of 0.9 mm/yr to the GRACE data do the two estimates come close to
agreement. Following this questionable GIA adjustment, the ARGO + GRACE
estimate is 1.1± 0.8 mm/yr as compared to the satellite altimetry
estimate of 1.3 ± 0.9 mm.

Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This,
along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica,
drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the
U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been
monitoring the gradual rise of the world's ocean in response to global
warming.

While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most
of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump.
This past year, it's been more like a pothole: between last summer and
this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch,
or half a centimeter.

Nils-Axel Mörner detects wash away.

If NASA thinks there is a POT-HOLE, Nils-Axel Mörner thinks that the road has been washed completely away.

At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all.

Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all.

The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.

The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.

These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.

Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.

In the Maldives, a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50-year-old tree by the shoreline, aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.

Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes, since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. The true facts are to be found in nature itself.

Since sea level is not rising, the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless.

Desperate Censorship

I posted the following comment at The Mercury News, which was promptly taken down.

Sea level is not rising in California. The tide gauge at
Crescent City shows sea level declining and the ones at Alameda and
Monterey show no change in sea level. Satellites show no sea level rise
along the entire west coast.

14 comments:

I cannot resist it now leo, I was going to leave you allto wallow in your own ignorance,

The toel sea level rise from steric and mass change has always been less than then altimeter readings, now at 3.1mm per yearNASA climate indicators,

so why the difference,The thermal expansion of the deep ocean

This deep ocean warming might be the reason why the sea level budget does not close. To gain a further confidence to the situation, the model results were compared to the available deep ocean measurements. The result from this comparison is a general match, even if some minor regional differences between the model results and the observations exist. The model results also show that the deep ocean warming is strongest in the Southern Ocean, which matches the results of the recent study by Purkey & Johnson.

The model simulations give a sea level rise of 1.1 mm/year from the thermal expansion of the deep ocean. When that is added to the 2.05 mm/year calculated above, the result (3.15 mm/year) is remarkably close to the observed rise of 3.1 mm/year (which more accurately is 3.11 mm/year).

Here it is important to note that most (82%) of the volume of the global ocean lies deeper than 700 meters from the surface. Therefore even slight warming in the deep ocean causes a large rise in sea level. Observations show that the upper parts of oceans have warmed for decades, which is sufficiently long time for the warming to show up in the deep ocean as well.

A very Simple mistake reduces the credibility of this article. Sea level did not drop by 5mm in 2010, it dropped by 5mm in 2011 as can be clearly seen by the graph and in supporting evidence. Surely someone proofs these before posting them...

Well, Anon, old fella, NASA has a team and a budget...this blog has me....and no budget.

You know that old furphy about Sceptics Blogs being financed by BigOil....it's a furphy. (But if you have some connections, we are not worried by being corrupted by finance from BigOil. BigOil who give the Alarmists many more dollars than they give sceptics. (see http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-alarmists-are-true-deniers.html)

I (re-)publish a graph from NASA. If you think that the graph has an inaccuracy, will you write to NASA and say: